俱舍論疏 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

In preparing to explain this treatise, there are five sections of analysis: first, harmonising the time of the first dharmacakrapravartana; second, the sequence of study and practice; third, the causes and conditions for the arising of the teaching; fourth, the chronological order of school affiliations; fifth, explaining according to the text.

1.3

1. As for harmonising the time of the first dharmacakrapravartana, within this there are four points: first, determining the day of abhisambodhi; second, determining the day of the dharmacakrapravartana; third, recounting the differences in intermediate events; fourth, harmonising the differing accounts. First, determining the day of abhisambodhi: According to the fourth fascicle of the Dīrghāgama, it says: 'On the eighth day the Tathāgata was born; on the eighth day the Buddha went forth; on the eighth day he attained bodhi; on the eighth day he entered extinction.' The subsequent passage says: 'In the second month the Tathāgata was born; in the second month the Buddha went forth; in the second month he attained bodhi; in the second month he entered nirvāṇa.' Furthermore, the Guanfo jing says: 'The Buddha told all the devas and humans: "All the Buddhas of the ten directions are born at midnight on the eighth day of the fourth month; all go forth at midnight on the eighth day of the fourth month; all achieve abhisambodhi at midnight on the eighth day of the fourth month; all enter parinirvāṇa at midnight on the eighth day of the fourth month."' The sūtras all agree on the eighth day; their statements regarding the month differ, with only the distinction between the second and fourth [months], and they mention no other month. Following the two explanations above, although their statements differ, the month and day of abhisambodhi are in fact identical. The reason this is known is briefly due to two principles: First, because of differences in establishing the first month of the year. The Brahmin lands establish the first month with the zi stem, whereas in this land in former times the first month was established with the yin stem. The fourth month of the zi system is the second month of the yin system. Therefore, those that preserve the Sanskrit text say the fourth month, while those relying on this land say the second month; their root is one. Second, calculating according to the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa and the Vibhāṣā: before Brahmā's entreaty there were fifty-seven days, and [together with] the four months of taming the faculties and examining capacities, etc., there are altogether six months. Thus, abhisambodhi was on the eighth day of the second month, and the dharmacakrapravartana definitely took place on the eighth day of the eighth month, as cited in the texts below. By this we know that abhisambodhi definitely occurred on the eighth day of the second month, because between it and the eighth day of the eighth month there are six months. If it were the eighth day of the fourth month, there would not be six months; for there are no textual proofs for four months between it and the dharmacakrapravartana. Furthermore, the Vinaya commentary says: 'The Buddha and the pañcaka bhikṣavaḥ began the earlier varṣā on the sixteenth day of the fourth month.' Between the eighth day of the fourth month and the varṣā there are only nine days, which contradicts the months and days in numerous sūtras and śāstras such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, and the Vibhāṣā. Following this, we therefore know that abhisambodhi definitely took place on the eighth day of the second month. Question: If so, why does the Pusa chutai jing say: 'On the eighth day of the second month he achieved abhisambodhi; on the eighth day of the second month he turned the dharmacakra; on the eighth day of the second month he subdued Māra; on the eighth day of the second month he entered parinirvāṇa'? Answer: There are two explanations for this. First, the Chutai jing explains that when the Bodhisattva dwelt in the womb he also turned the dharmacakra; this was for the esoteric assembly, not for the exoteric assembly. That the dharmacakra was turned on the very day of abhisambodhi is also to be understood in this sense. What is spoken of now is the day on which the dharmacakra was turned for the pañcaka bhikṣavaḥ; the various explanations differ, and this was not for the esoteric assembly. Second, the error in various sūtras of mistaking the second month for the fourth month is due to differences in establishing the first month of the year, as already explained above. The mistaking of the eighth month for the second or fourth month is because Kārttika is the name of the constellation mao in the eighth month, and the second month is also the month of the branch mao. While the constellation and earthly branch describe different things, the name mao is identical. If one knows that Kārttika corresponds to the mao of the you quadrant, it is translated as the eighth month; if one takes Kārttika to be the mao of the zhen quadrant, it is translated as the second or fourth month. Due to this, the days of the dharmacakrapravartana, etc., differ between the second, fourth, and eighth months, and the day of parinirvāṇa varies among the eighth, fourth, and second months. Examining the majority of scriptural teachings and reason, the conversion of the pañcaka bhikṣavaḥ was definitely in the eighth month. The harmonisation of the day of nirvāṇa is as explained in a separate chapter.

1.4

2. As for determining the day of the dharmacakrapravartana: In the various sūtras and treatises it is always stated, 'In the Mṛgadāva of Vārāṇasī, he turned the dharmacakra of the catvāri āryasatyāni for the pañcaka bhikṣavaḥ.' The number of days accounted for in intermediate events varies, yet those which do not explicitly specify the names of the month and day of preaching the Dharma cannot be solely relied upon. Only the Vibhāṣā and the Vinaya commentary explicitly specify the month and day of preaching the Dharma, and one should rely upon these texts. The Vibhāṣā, fascicle 183, says: 'On the eighth day of the bright half of the month of Kārttika, the Buddha delivered Ājñātakauṇḍinya.' Kārttika corresponds to the eighth month of this land. The Vibhāṣā, fascicle 136, says: 'On the eighth day of the bright half of the month of Kārttika, day and night are equal; on the ninth day, the night increases by one lava.' Although the characters jie and jia differ, the word is the same. Thus we know that it was definitely the eighth day of the eighth month. Furthermore, the Vinaya commentary says: 'The Buddha and the pañcaka bhikṣavaḥ began the earlier varṣā on the sixteenth day of the fourth month, and during the single summer retreat they did not attain the noble fruit. Past the summer, on the eighth day of the eighth month, Kauṇḍinya suddenly perceived the Dharma.' The reasoning of these two treatises is extremely clear; since other texts are not clear, they cannot be taken as standard. Therefore, we know that the dharmacakrapravartana definitely took place on the eighth day of the eighth month. Although there are two different explanations of the Buddha's abhisambodhi day—either the eighth day of the second month or the eighth day of the fourth month—no sūtra or treatise says that the dharmacakrapravartana occurred in the second or fourth month; therefore we know it was not after three weeks. Nor is there any text saying it was in the third, fourth, fifth, or sixth month; therefore we know that the dharmacakrapravartana was not after six weeks, seven weeks, eight weeks, or fifty-seven days.

1.5

Third, describing the particular events of the intermediate period: in the sūtras, vinayas, and treatises, accounts of the time and seasons intervening between [the Buddha's] abhisambodhi and the dharmacakrapravartana differ in brevity or detail, and vary in sequence. For now, what occurred before observing the capacities [of beings] is narrated according to the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, and what occurred after observing their capacities is recounted according to the Vibhāṣā. Points of agreement and difference with other texts are appended immediately thereafter. Fascicle thirty-one of the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya states: 'In the first watch of the night he attained the vidyā of past lives; in the middle watch of the night he attained the vidyā of witnessing birth and death; in the final watch of the night he attained the vidyā of the destruction of the āsravas. Having attained these trividyā, he immediately went beneath the bodhi tree, sat cross-legged, and remained unmoved for seven days experiencing the bliss of vimokṣa. When seven days had elapsed, he arose from that samādhi and received barley meal and honey from two merchant brothers, conferring upon them the two refuges. It is said that the initial upāsakas began from this. The Four Heavenly Kings presented bowls to receive the barley meal and honey. This is the first seven-day period.' The Sūtra of Causes and Effects speaks of his receiving the merchants' barley meal and honey after observing the capacities. The Dharmaguptaka states: 'Having consumed the barley meal and honey, he immediately sat cross-legged beneath the tree for seven days unmoved, roaming in the samādhi of vimokṣa. When seven days had elapsed, he arose from the samādhi. Not far from there was a harītakī fruit tree, and the tree deity there offered the World-Honoured One harītakī fruit. Having accepted it, he conferred upon [the deity] the two refuges. This is the second seven-day period. Having consumed this fruit, he entered samādhi as before; emerging from samādhi, he entered the village of Uruvilvā to beg for alms, and after receiving food from a brāhmaṇa, he conferred upon him the two refuges. This is the third seven-day period.' The above three periods of seven days were beneath the bodhi tree. 'Having eaten, he further went beneath a rājāyatana tree and entered samādhi as before. Having emerged from the samādhi, he entered the village of Uruvilvā to beg for alms, and after receiving food from a brāhmaṇa woman, he conferred upon her the two refuges. It is said that this was the beginning of upāsikās.' According to this vinaya passage, humans who receive the three refuges obtain the lay vows (upāsaka-saṃvara), whereas spirits and animals do not. 'This is the fourth seven-day period. Having eaten, he returned beneath the rājāyatana tree and entered samādhi as before; having arisen from samādhi, he entered the village of Uruvilvā to beg for alms, and after receiving food from a brāhmaṇa man and woman, he conferred upon them the three refuges. This is the fifth seven-day period.' The above two periods of seven days were beneath the rājāyatana tree. 'Having eaten, he went to the palace of the nāga king Mucilinda; having arrived, he entered samādhi as before, and the heavens rained for seven days. And so forth, down to the nāga king coiling his body around the Buddha, shading the Buddha with his hood, and so forth. This is the sixth seven-day period.' The Sūtra of Causes and Effects places this after observing the capacities. The above six periods of seven days were spent experiencing the bliss of the samādhi of vimokṣa. Furthermore, the Dharmaguptaka states: 'Having arisen from samādhi, he went beneath an ajapālanigrodha tree, laid out his sitting mat, and sat cross-legged.' The Mahīśāsaka-vinaya states: 'He entered samādhi for seven days.' It also states: 'He accepted food from a woman [selling] curd, and having eaten, he entered samādhi.' The above is from the Mahīśāsaka text. The Dharmaguptaka also states: 'He had this thought, saying: "I have now attained it. This Dharma is profound, difficult to comprehend and difficult to know, tranquil, quiescent, subtle, supreme, known by the wise." And so on, until having contemplated, he spoke two verses; having spoken the two verses, he remained silent.' The above period of contemplating the profound Dharma does not state the number of days. The Lotus Sūtra says: 'Contemplating the tree and also walking back and forth, / during three periods of seven days / he contemplated such matters: / "The wisdom I have attained / is subtle and foremost of all. / Sentient beings are of dull faculties, / clinging to pleasure and blinded by delusion; / how can beings such as these / be ferried across?"' This accords with the sense of the vinaya. According to the above, six periods of seven days were spent experiencing the bliss of vimokṣa, and three periods of seven days contemplating the Dharma, making nine periods of seven days in all. The day of emerging from the preceding samādhi is the start of the succeeding seven days; excluding the overlapping six days, fifty-seven days remain, which is prior to the entreaty by Brahmā. This agrees with the number of days in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa and the Vibhāṣā. Fascicle eight of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'After Śākyamuni Buddha attained the way, for fifty-seven days he preferred not to teach the Dharma, saying: "My Dharma is profound, difficult to comprehend and difficult to know. All sentient beings are bound and attached to worldly dharmas, and none can comprehend it. It is better to remain silent and enter the bliss of nirvāṇa." At that time, Brahmā and others entreated the Buddha to first turn the wheel of the Dharma for the sake of all sentient beings. The Buddha then silently accepted the entreaty. Later, he went to the grove of Vārāṇasī to turn the wheel of the true Dharma.' This agrees with the meaning of the vinaya and the Lotus Sūtra. The Dharmaguptaka also says: 'Brahmā entreated the Buddha to turn the wheel of the Dharma; after the Buddha consented, Brahmā returned to his palace.' The above account of observing the capacities agrees in general meaning between the vinaya, the Vibhāṣā, and others; minor differences between them are omitted without narration. The above is recounted based on fascicle one hundred eighty-two of the Vibhāṣā. The treatise says: 'Beneath the bodhi tree, the Bodhisattva attained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi through thirty-four moments of mind. With the Buddha-eye he surveyed all realms of the world [to see] who should be the first to hear my true Dharma, that I may expound it for them. Having observed, he knew that Rāmaputra should be the first to hear my Dharma. At that time, a deva addressed the Buddha, saying: "Rāmaputra passed away last night."' Some say seven days; the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya says: 'Udraka Rāmaputra has been dead for seven days.' It also says: 'At that time the World-Honoured One also gave rise to knowledge and vision, knowing that he had passed away, and lamented with a sigh: "He has missed a great benefit! If he had heard the Dharma taught by me, he would have attained true understanding." The World-Honoured One observed again: "Apart from him, who should be the first to hear my true Dharma, that I may expound it for them?" Having observed, he knew Ārāḍa Kālāma.' The Dharmaguptaka says: 'Ārāḍa Kālāma should hear the Dharma first.' 'The deva again addressed the Buddha: "Seven days have already passed since he died."' Some say yesterday; the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya also says yesterday. 'At that time the World-Honoured One also gave rise to knowledge and vision, knowing that he had passed away, and lamented as before.' Question: When he first attained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, why did he not preach the Dharma for those two persons, but waited until they had passed away so that they could not hear the Dharma? Was not the Tathāgata's teaching and transforming untimely? It is further said: 'At that time, the roots of goodness of those two persons were not yet mature; they were not yet capable of hearing the Dharma. Why is this? After the Buddha attained abhisambodhi, if that first person had retained more than fifty-seven days of life, he would have been capable of hearing the Dharma; if that second person had retained more than fifty-one days of life, he would have been capable of hearing the Dharma. Hence, the Buddha's teaching and transforming was not untimely.' According to this treatise text, although the Vibhāṣā does not expound in detail the number of days prior to Brahmā's entreaty, excluding the day of the Buddha's abhisambodhi, the fifty-seven days up until his assent to the entreaty agree with the vinaya and the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, and so forth. It also says: 'The World-Honoured One sometimes retains his own life-force (āyuḥsaṃskāra), as when awaiting Subhadra and others. If it were a matter of retaining the life-force of another, there is no such possibility.' According to this treatise text, there is no retaining the life-force of another. 'The World-Honoured One observed again: "Apart from those two persons, who should be the first to hear my teaching of the Dharma, that I may expound it for them?" Having observed, he knew that the five persons including Kauṇḍinya should hear the Dharma first. He then thought: "They are my relatives from my father and mother who previously paid respect and made offerings to me. Now I wish to repay them; where are they located?" A deva then said: "They are now in Mṛgadāva, [the grove of] the ṛṣis in the land of Vārāṇasī." At that time the World-Honoured One also gave rise to knowledge and vision, knowing they were in that place. He then departed from beneath the bodhi tree and travelled on foot.' Question: The Buddha was fully endowed with supreme miraculous power; why did he travel on foot? Answer: Out of reverence for the Dharma, he did not use his supernatural travel. Moreover, when the Buddha walked, his feet were always four fingers' breadth above the ground, and in every footprint there was a distinct, painted-like mark of a lovely thousand-spoked wheel with auspicious swastikas; where his shadow touched, even up to seven days later, it caused any sattva who reached that spot to experience serenity and joy in all their faculties. 'Gradually travelling, he arrived at Vārāṇasī. At that time, the five persons caught sight of the Buddha unexpectedly, and thereupon agreed upon a rule among themselves: "That Gautama, indolent and arrogant, desiring much, confused and devoid of mindfulness, has achieved nothing at all. And now he comes again, wishing to call and entice us. Let us not converse with him, pay him respect, or greet him; we shall merely spread a single ordinary seat and leave it to him whether he sits or not." At that time, as the World-Honoured One gradually drew near to them, compelled by his awesome majesty and virtue, they abandoned their original resolution; unconsciously, all at once they rose from their seats, ran to meet him, and with joined palms took refuge. Among them, some adjusted and spread a clean seat, some took the Buddha's robe, some took the Buddha's bowl, some offered water, and some washed his feet, all addressing the Buddha: "We pray only that you take your seat." The Buddha then thought: "Such foolish men make a rule themselves, and in a moment break it again." Then the Buddha went to the seat and sat down serenely, his majestic radiance extraordinary like Mount Meru. And so forth, down to the World-Honoured One then gradually guiding and transforming them, causing them to be subdued. During the first part of the day, he expounded the Dharma, admonished, and instructed two persons, sending the remaining three persons into the village to beg for alms, and the almsfood they begged was sufficient for six persons. During the latter part of the day, he expounded the Dharma, admonished, and instructed three persons, sending the remaining two persons into the village to beg for alms, and the food they begged was sufficient for five persons, because the World-Honoured One by nature refrains from eating at improper times. Teaching and transforming them in this way for three months—some say four months—once the roots of goodness of those five persons had matured, on the eighth day of the bright half of the month of Kārttika, the Tathāgata turned the wheel of the true Dharma for them, at which time Kauṇḍinya was the first to see the Dharma.'

1.6

Fourth, reconciling the differing accounts. Question: If after the Buddha achieved awakening, six months passed before he turned the wheel of the true Dharma, why do the Udānavarga and the Lalitavistara say forty-nine days (seven times seven days); the Sūtra on Cause and Effect and the Lotus Sūtra say twenty-one days (three times seven days); the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says that the Buddha did not preach the Dharma for fifty-seven days; the Lalitavistara states two weeks gazing [at the tree] and two weeks walking; the Sūtra on Cause and Effect states one week gazing at the tree; while the Lotus Sūtra mentions walking and gazing at the tree without stating the number of days? The Dharmaguptaka-vinaya says six weeks (six times seven days); the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya says eight weeks (eight times seven days); the Vibhāṣā says four months; furthermore, some sūtras speak of half a year; and the Dvādaśayojana-sūtra speaks of one year? Answer: From ancient times, masters of the sūtras, vinaya, and śāstras have all said that this is due to differences in what was seen and heard. Their intended meaning is: while the Buddha was in the world, in accordance with the varying faculties and awe-inspiring virtues of sentient beings, some saw the wheel of the Dharma turned after many days, while others saw it turned after few days. Now, when closely examined, this explanation is incorrect. Regarding the Tathāgata's manifestation of the eight phases of attaining awakening—manifesting parents, wife and son, the birthday, leaving home, attaining awakening, and the day he turned the wheel of the Dharma for the five monks—the accounts in the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna ought logically to be entirely the same; matters such as walking, distance, gazing at the tree, and so forth may admit of differences, because the Buddha's supernatural powers and the marks of his entering absorption are matters difficult to comprehend. Question: How is this known? Answer: Briefly, there are five cases: first, because different time periods are cited; second, because earlier and later parts in different texts differ in breadth and brevity; third, because the month and day of birth and so on are the same; fourth, because earlier and later passages within the same text state differences; and fifth, because the transmitters made errors. Owing to the above five reasons, the accounts have differences, but the fundamental matter is the same. First, regarding different time periods being cited: The forty-two days (six times seven days) in the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya refers to the period of experiencing the bliss of liberation. The twenty-one days (three times seven days) in the Lotus Sūtra refers to the period of contemplating the Dharma. The forty-nine days (seven times seven days) in the Udānavarga and Lalitavistara, the fifty-six days (eight times seven days) in the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya, and so forth, include the period of contemplating the Dharma. The fifty-seven days in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa refers to the period before Brahmā's request. The four months in the Vibhāṣā refers to the period of taming the faculties of the five monks. The half-year in certain sūtras is because of the six months. The one year in the Dvādaśayojana-sūtra is because of passing one rains retreat (varṣā), since the Vinaya and the Varṣo-pagatā-sūtra treat a rains retreat as a year. Second, regarding earlier and later parts in different texts differing in breadth and brevity: The Vinaya is extensive in the earlier part and concise in the later part; earlier it separately explains the periods of experiencing the bliss of liberation and contemplating the Dharma, but later it concisely omits the four months of taming their faculties. The Vibhāṣā is concise earlier, not speaking of the period prior to Brahmā's request, but later it extensively explains the four months of taming their faculties. By using these two texts to mutually corroborate each other, one knows that the number of days amounted to six months before he finally began to preach the Dharma. Third, regarding the month and day of birth and so on being the same: Since in the eight phases of attaining awakening, the days of his parents, wife and son, birth, leaving home, and attaining awakening are all stated to be identical, how could there be such a vast discrepancy regarding the day he turned the wheel of the Dharma for the five monks? Therefore we know that fundamentally it is the same, and the transmissions merely vary in breadth and brevity or contain errors. Fourth, regarding earlier and later passages within the same text stating differences: Fascicle 182 of the Vibhāṣā says: "The Buddha, under the Bodhi tree, with thirty-four thought-moments attained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; with the Buddha-eye he surveyed all realms of the world to see who ought first to hear my true Dharma," as quoted previously. According to this, as soon as the Buddha achieved awakening, he examined their faculties, concisely omitting in the interim his experiencing the bliss of liberation, contemplating the Dharma, Brahmā's request, and so on; could it be that these did not exist at all? Therefore we know that where various versions have lacunae, this is also an abridgement. If one were to say that the Vibhāṣā reflects differences in what was seen and heard, and that he examined their faculties immediately after attaining awakening, why does a subsequent passage in the Vibhāṣā say: "That first person: after the Buddha achieved awakening, if fifty-seven more days had passed and he had any remaining life, he would have been capable of hearing the Dharma"? This means that fifty-seven days elapsed from the Buddha's attainment of awakening until he examined their faculties, which is identical to the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. Furthermore, the first fascicle of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "At that time the Bodhisattva abandoned the place of ascetic practices, went beneath the Bodhi tree, sat on the vajrāsana, and having subdued the hosts of Māra, immediately attained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. At that time Brahmā and the others all went to the Buddha's dwelling and urged the World-Honoured One to turn the wheel of the Dharma for the first time." According to this treatise, there would be no eating of milk-rice, nor the periods of experiencing the bliss of liberation and contemplating the Dharma: immediately after the Buddha achieved awakening, Brahmā made his request. If the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa alone claimed they did not exist because of differences in what was seen and heard, why does its eighth fascicle say: "After Śākyamuni Buddha attained the Path, how could he not have preached the Dharma for fifty-seven days? At that time Brahmā and the others made their request"? Thus the omissions and abridgements in various passages are just like the brevity in the first fascicle, not differences in what was seen and heard. Fifth, regarding errors in transmission and translation: For instance, the Song version of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra speaks of "twenty-four precepts for a bodhisattva of good faith," whereas the Tang and Sui versions speak of "four hundred precepts for a bodhisattva." The Zheng fahua jing speaks of twelve hundred virtues for each of the six faculties, whereas the Miaofa lianhua jing speaks of twelve hundred for three faculties and eight hundred for three faculties, and so forth. Other differences that cannot be reconciled are all of this kind. Fundamentally they are one, and the discrepancies are due to transmission.

1.7

Second, concerning the sequence of study and practice: among all myriad practices, listening to the Dharma and drawing near to good spiritual friends are the very beginning. Fascicle twenty-five of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] states: "It is by the cause and condition of listening to the Dharma that all sentient beings are able to draw near to great nirvāṇa. Because all sentient beings listen to the Dharma, they are endowed with the faculty of faith. Because they obtain the faculty of faith, they delight in practicing giving, morality, patience, vigor, dhyāna, and wisdom, and attain the fruit of srotāpanna up to the fruit of Buddhahood. Therefore, one should know that attaining all wholesome dharmas is entirely due to the power of the causes and conditions of listening to the Dharma." It also states: "Faith has its cause in listening to the Dharma; listening to the Dharma has its cause in faith. Such two dharmas are both cause and the cause of a cause, both fruit and the fruit of a fruit." Furthermore, fascicle fifty-eight of the Nyāyānusāra states: "The behaviors and practices cultivated in the stage of initial karma are exceedingly extensive. Those who wish to understand them thoroughly should seek them in the various treatises on contemplative practice compiled for sentient beings. To state the essential: a beginner in practice should possess a deep aspiration for liberation, contemplating the virtues of nirvāṇa and turning away from the faults of saṃsāra. One should first use skillful means to draw near to a good friend, because a good friend is the root of all practices. One who possesses the power of hearing and so forth obtains the name 'good friend', like a skilled physician"—and so on at length. Furthermore, the four limbs of stream-entry (srotāpanna-aṅga) are: first, drawing near to good friends; second, listening to the correct Dharma; third, proper mental attention (yoniśo manaskāra); fourth, practice in accordance with the Dharma. Such passages are found in all sūtras; to hear yet not believe is still better than not hearing at all. Thus the Lotus [Sūtra] states: "If at that time the multitude of dharmas heard the words of Sadāparibhūta: 'You will all become Buddhas,' although they slandered him and did not believe, falling into hell, by this cause and condition they met immeasurable Buddhas, and later encountering Sadāparibhūta, they all gave rise to the great aspiration [for awakening]." Regarding the doctrine of the Three Vehicles, one must in all cases first study the teaching of existence of the Hīnayāna, and only thereafter may one study the teaching of emptiness of the Mahāyāna. How is this known? Because there is abundant textual evidence. First, fascicle six of the Daśacakra-sūtra states: "Good sons! If sentient beings have not yet toiled and exerted diligent effort to cultivate and study the teachings of the Śrāvaka Vehicle and the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle—such sentient beings have inferior faculties and little vigor—if one expounds the subtle, profound, correct Dharma of the Mahāyāna to them, both speaker and listener commit a great offense and also run counter to all Buddhas. Why is this? If sentient beings have not yet toiled in the Śrāvaka Vehicle and the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, up to listening to and receiving the correct Dharma of the Mahāyāna, such sentient beings are truly foolish, though they consider themselves wise... All the retribution for the offenses of such sentient beings is because, without having sought, listened to, and practiced the teachings of the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha Vehicles, they first sought to listen to and practice the correct Dharma of the Mahāyāna. Such foolish nihilists will find even an inferior human body difficult to obtain, let alone being able to become a vessel for the noble Dharma! Up to: all the faults of such sentient beings arise because they have not studied the teachings of the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha Vehicles and have entered the Mahāyāna first." Second, fascicle two of the Saṃdhinirmocana states: "For those who have not planted roots of virtue, have not purified their hindrances, have not perfected their mental continuities, have not extensively cultivated superior resolve, and have not accumulated the two provisions of merit and wisdom, I rely on the intrinsic nature of saṃsāra to definitively explain all dharmas. When they hear this, they understand according to their capacity impermanence, non-eternity, and so forth, causing them to plant roots of virtue and so on." This refers to the Hīnayāna teaching of the first period. "If they have already planted roots of virtue, up to having already accumulated the provisions of merit and wisdom, then relying on the three kinds of non-nature-ness, I teach that all dharmas are without intrinsic nature; relying on the non-nature-ness of characteristics and so forth, I teach that all dharmas are without arising and ceasing, and so forth." This refers to the Mahāyāna teaching of the second period. Furthermore, a later passage states: "If there are sentient beings who have accumulated superior roots of virtue, up to the superior two provisions of merit and wisdom, when they hear me well explaining the dharma of non-arising and non-ceasing and so forth, they believe that this is spoken by the Buddha, know well what to accept and what to reject, and are able to quickly realize unsurpassed bodhi. If they cultivate the inferior five matters, and hear this teaching of mine, they believe it is spoken by the Buddha and obtain immeasurable merit, yet they give rise to clinging to their own views, saying that all dharmas are without arising and without ceasing, fundamentally quiescent, intrinsically nirvāṇa, and so forth. Because they give rise to clinging to their own views, they fall away from immeasurable wisdom. If they do not cultivate the five matters, when they hear this teaching of mine, they generate great karmic hindrances, slandering and disbelieving it." According to this sūtra text, it is by hearing the teaching of existence that one cultivates the five matters, and by having the five matters one is able to believe in the Mahāyāna. If one does not cultivate the five matters, one will slander and disbelieve; therefore, one definitely must first study the Hīnayāna and later study the Mahāyāna. For this reason, when Buddhas appear in the world, they first teach the Hīnayāna and later teach the Mahāyāna. Third, chapter 465, "The Chapter on Universal Learning," of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā states: "Subhūti! If one does not universally study the Dharma of the Śrāvaka Vehicle and the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, one will ultimately never be able to attain the Bodhisattva's path of seeing (darśanamārga)." Fourth, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: "It is like an elder who has only one son; because the child is young and incapable, he first teaches him the half-word [alphabet], and later, as he gradually grows up, only then does he teach him the full words." Fifth, the Bodhisattvaprātimokṣa states: "Among bodhisattvas who undertake and study the bodhisattva precepts, if one studies the small and does not study the great, it is an infraction, but not a defiled one; if one studies the great and does not study the small, it is an infraction and also defiled." Sixth, the Lotus Sūtra, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, and so on all state: "Because sentient beings are incapable of hearing the Mahāyāna, it is better to remain silent and enter into nirvāṇa. Due to the entreaty of the god Brahmā, the Buddha first taught the Hīnayāna." Based on these passages, one knows that if one wishes to study the great Dharma, one must first study the Hīnayāna Dharma. We now consider that the sūtras explain studying the Hīnayāna first and the Mahāyāna later for roughly four reasons: First, because the Mahāyāna is deep and subtle, difficult to believe, and people will immediately give rise to slander. The Lotus Sūtra states: "If I were only to praise the Buddha Vehicle, sentient beings, submerged in suffering, would slander the Dharma and not believe, thereby falling into the three evil destinies." Second, because they would give rise to nihilistic views. The Daśacakra-sūtra states: "If sentient beings have not toiled and exerted diligent effort to cultivate and study the teachings of the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha Vehicles, their faculties being immature, inferior, and with little vigor, yet they immediately listen to and receive the subtle and profound correct Dharma of the Mahāyāna—such sentient beings are truly foolish, though they consider themselves wise; they fall into the extreme of annihilation, fall into deranged conceptions, and grasp at the doctrine of causelessness." Third, if one does not study the Hīnayāna and only studies the Mahāyāna, claiming oneself to be a student of the Mahāyāna, one will slight and slander the Śrāvaka Vehicle—both its persons and its teachings—incurring great painful retribution. Therefore the Daśacakra states: "Or, having listened slightly to the Unsurpassed Vehicle's teaching, they slander, revile, obstruct, and conceal the teachings of the Śrāvaka Vehicle and the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle—which are protected by all Buddhas together—preventing them from circulating; and seeking fame and gain, they make such a proclamation: 'I belong to the Mahāyāna, I am of the Mahāyāna faction; I only delight in listening to, practicing, and upholding the Mahāyāna, and do not delight in the teachings of the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha Vehicles, nor do I draw near to those who study the Two Vehicles.' Such people falsely claiming to be of the Mahāyāna, driven by the power of their own foolishness and arrogance, go so far as to slander, revile, and humiliate those who cultivate and study the teachings of the Two Vehicles, stripping them of authority." It also states: "If one disparages even a single chapter down to a single verse of the Three Vehicles, one should not draw near to them, nor socialize with them, nor live together with them, nor engage in common endeavors with them. If anyone draws near to them or socializes with them, lives together with them, or shares common endeavors, both will definitely fall into the Avīci hell, experiencing great suffering with hardly any time of escape. Why is this? Good sons! When I cultivated the bodhisattva practices in the past, diligently seeking to realize unsurpassed wisdom, even for the sake of requesting the teachings of the Śrāvaka Vehicle down to a single verse, I went so far as to abandon my own hands and feet, flesh and blood, skin and bones, head, eyes, marrow, and brain (and the same applies to the other two [vehicles])." Fourth, if one does not first study the teaching of existence and thoroughly practice roots of virtue and so on, there will be many obstacles and difficulties, and one will be unable to believe and understand. Question: If so, why do most Mahāyāna sūtras disparage studying the Hīnayāna and praise studying the Mahāyāna as the ultimate practice? Answer: The Daśacakra-sūtra resolves and explains this itself, stating: "Therefore all Three Vehicles should be cultivated and studied; one should not arrogantly and falsely claim the Mahāyāna, slandering and reviling the teachings of the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha Vehicles. Previously, only for the sake of those who are vessels of the Mahāyāna Dharma and firmly practicing, did I state that only cultivating the Mahāyāna Dharma can attain the ultimate. Therefore what was said previously and what is said now do not contradict each other." The Brahmajāla-sūtra and others are all to be resolved according to this. [Question:] If so, is there not a Mahāyāna spiritual lineage (gotra) that, without relying on gradual accumulation, can believe and understand simply upon hearing the Mahāyāna? Answer: The gotras of the Three Vehicles must rely on previously accumulated roots of virtue; there is no naturally established original nature that differentiates the Three Vehicles. Therefore, fascicle one of the Upāsaka-śīla-sūtra states: "It is not by virtue of nature that one is called a bodhisattva. Sentient beings have an element called the mind of desire; when the mind desires in this way through the causes and conditions of wholesome karma and gives rise to the bodhicitta, it is called the bodhisattva gotra." Passages like this are not just one or two. Furthermore, the Hīnayāna Dharma is twofold: first, the Hīnayāna teaching, which refers to the teaching of existence expounding suffering, emptiness, impermanence, dependent origination, and so forth; second, generating the Hīnayāna resolve. This [explanation] says that one relies on its teaching of existence to accumulate roots of virtue and only then can one believe in the Mahāyāna; it does not say that one first generates the resolve of the Two Vehicles and only afterward studies the Mahāyāna. One who does not generate the resolve of the Two Vehicles but generates the Mahāyāna resolve, even while studying the Hīnayāna, is not called indeterminate, but is called having the bodhisattva nature. Now one should counter-challenge: If one does not need to accumulate roots of virtue upon meeting conditions to be able to believe in the Mahāyāna, but can generate faith simply upon encountering the teaching, then the previous Buddhas should have already fully delivered everyone. Why is it that up to the present day there are still those with the nature to attain parinirvāṇa who fall into the three evil destinies? And why do the treatises say that those in hell possess the three anāsrava faculties? Question: Some posit that if there is an inherently existent nirvāṇa-gotra and the capacity for the One Vehicle, there must be distinctive signs: namely, that by nature they spontaneously feel revulsion toward saṃsāra and delight in nirvāṇa, have slight defilements, do not commit coarse evil deeds, do not sever roots of virtue, and so on—broadly turning around the characteristics of lacking gotra. Is this assertion correct or incorrect? Answer: This assertion is incorrect. Question: How is this known? Answer: Because it contradicts both reason and scripture. As for contradicting reason: if from beginningless time they were able to feel revulsion toward saṃsāra, delight in nirvāṇa, have slight defilements, not commit coarse evil, and gradually cultivate and perfume [their minds], they all should have already entered the realm of parinirvāṇa long ago, since time is beginningless. Why then does the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra say: "Constantly committing evil and severing roots of virtue, being incomplete in wholesome causes, is called being devoid of gotra for a time"? Yet such persons still exist today. Furthermore, if having an original nature entails having visible signs, then when one completely severs roots of virtue and exclusively commits evil, what difference is there between such a sign and that of lacking gotra, such that one could know they are a bodhisattva or a person of the One Vehicle? As for contradicting scripture: the Bodhisattva-śīla Sūtra, Yogācārabhūmi, Bodhisattvabhūmi, and so forth state that "the subtle nature of a bodhisattva is obtained without a cause," and it is universally accepted that this is the original nature of a bodhisattva. In the sūtras and treatises there are only two kinds of signs: first, the sign of the subtle nature; second, the sign of possessing both natures. The sign of the subtle nature can only be known by a Buddha; how could an ordinary person rashly speak of distinguishing these signs? Possessing the two natures has six signs, which all sentient beings can know. Any sign that is knowable by ordinary beings is not the original sign; how could there be a knowable sign that is the sign of the original nature? Furthermore, the Mālā-sūtra states: "Prince Sudhana and others, prior to the sixth dwelling stage, retrogressed and severed their roots of virtue, falling into the Avīci hell, leaving no evil uncommitted." By what signs could these people be known as bodhisattvas? Furthermore, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and others all state that the seeds of the objective condition (ālambanapratyaya) of Suchness in fascicle fifty-two of the Yogācāra are the original nature of a bodhisattva. The Yogācārabhūmi states: "All have the objective condition of Suchness." Because all possess it, gotra is distinguished on the basis of hindrances. Since the cause is equal, how could the signs differ? Therefore one knows that signs being spoken of as present or absent differently according to persons definitely does not pertain to the original nature. If one says that an inherently existent lack of gotra has knowable signs, aside from the Śrāvakabhūmi, what textual evidence is there? Those who are capable of believing in the Mahāyāna Dharma in the present age have all planted roots of virtue in past lives. Thus the Prajñā[pāramitā] states: "If anyone generates a single thought of pure faith in this sūtra, you should know that this person has planted roots of virtue not merely under one Buddha, two Buddhas, three, four, or five Buddhas, but has already planted roots of virtue under immeasurable thousands of myriads of Buddhas." Based only on what has been clarified above, this treatise applies to those capacities, accommodating the five gotras, because it is the foundation of all myriad practices.

1.8

Third, the causes and conditions for the arising of the teachings: within this there are five: 1. the conditions for the arising of all teachings; 2. the conditions for the arising of the teachings of the three vehicles; 3. the conditions for the arising of the teachings on emptiness and existence; 4. the conditions for the arising of the teachings of the Tripiṭaka; 5. the conditions for the arising of the teaching of this treatise.

1.9

First, the conditions for the arising of all teachings: When all Buddhas made their vows on the causal stage, it was entirely to deliver all sentient beings and cause them to attain Buddhahood. Practicing the bodhisattva conduct for three incalculable eons and realizing great bodhi was not for the sake of causing sentient beings to be born among humans or gods and seize minor fruits that they sought great bodhi and practiced many austerities. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says: "It is solely for the sake of the one great cause and condition that [the Buddhas] appear in the world: namely, to open, reveal, awaken to, and cause all sentient beings to enter into the knowledge and vision of the Buddha." Furthermore, the Prajñā-śāstra states that generating the aspiration for great bodhi has four minds: vast, foremost, constant, and non-inverted. 'Vast' and 'foremost' mean desiring to cause all sentient beings to attain nirvāṇa without remainder. Nirvāṇa without remainder is distinguished from the nirvāṇa of the Lesser Vehicle. The purport of all Mahāyāna scriptures is identical. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "There are the paths of the three vehicles as well as the paths of humans and gods. The Dharma of the bodhisattva is properly to guide sentient beings into the Great Vehicle's path; those who cannot abide in the Great Path are placed within the two vehicles, and those who cannot abide in nirvāṇa are placed within the merit and bliss of humans and gods to serve as causes for nirvāṇa." The purport of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra and the Lotus Sūtra is also identical to this. According to the meaning of the sūtra and treatise passages cited above, all bodhisattvas practicing the bodhisattva conduct and expounding the three trainings, the three vehicles, and the Tripiṭaka do so entirely for the sake of the Buddha Vehicle.

1.10

Second, the conditions for the arising of the teachings of the three vehicles: within this there are two: primary and secondary. The primary refers to turning the wheel of the Dharma of the four noble truths for those seeking the Śrāvaka Vehicle, expounding the twelve links of dependent origination for those seeking the Pratyekabuddha [Vehicle], and expounding the six pāramitās for those seeking the Great Vehicle. The secondary means expounding the teachings of the three vehicles universally for persons of the three vehicles. The various treatises state that in the stage of preparatory application of collective and distinctive mindfulness, practitioners of the Śrāvaka Vehicle also cultivate the contemplation of dependent origination with its three meanings, as well as the seven bases of goodness, the forty-four knowledges, the seventy-seven knowledges, and so forth. Therefore the "Universal Learning Chapter" of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā states: "Prior to the path of seeing, the three vehicles must all learn universally." Thus we know that the four truths, twelve links, six pāramitās, and so forth, are taught universally for the three vehicles.

1.11

Third, the conditions for the arising of the teachings on emptiness and existence: The teaching of existence was spoken for those who have not yet planted roots of goodness, have not yet purified their hindrances, have not yet brought their mental continua to maturation, have not yet extensively cultivated resolute faith, and have not yet accumulated the provisions of merit and wisdom; it speaks of dharmas as having intrinsic nature, having arising and ceasing, being unstable, and so forth, in order to plant roots of goodness and up to causing them to accumulate the two kinds of provisions of merit and wisdom. For those who have already planted roots of goodness and up to having already accumulated the two provisions of merit and wisdom, the Buddha further relied upon the three non-natures to teach that all dharmas lack intrinsic nature: namely, the non-nature of characteristics, the non-nature of arising, and the non-nature of the ultimate. Furthermore, relying upon the non-nature of characteristics and the non-nature of the ultimate, he taught that all things are without arising and without ceasing, originally tranquil and intrinsically nirvāṇa. Moreover, turning the wheel of the Dharma of the four truths for those setting forth in the Śrāvaka Vehicle is precisely the teaching of existence expounded for the śrāvakas. It was solely for those setting forth to cultivate the Great Vehicle that he taught that all dharmas are without intrinsic nature, without arising and without ceasing, and originally tranquil and intrinsically nirvāṇa. This, then, is the teaching of emptiness expounded solely for those setting forth in the Great Vehicle. This is according to its manifest aspect; in terms of principle and reality, the teaching of existence is universal to the three vehicles, and the teaching of emptiness is likewise universal to the three vehicles, because when persons of fixed nature among the three vehicles hear the Prajñā, they all realize the unconditioned ground of their own respective vehicles.

First 11 of 370 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

俱舍論疏 — Classical Chinese